This is the second in a series inspired by Bertrand Russell's essay
Why I am not a Christian. My intention in this series is, however,
not to follow his essay fanatically, but to use it as an excuse to jump
off into various digressions. Russell's essay is a good starting point,
partly because of its influence, but mostly (to my mind) because he
touches on a lot of subjects in a paragraph or even sentence each of which
deserve be fleshed out in far greater depth.

I am right at the start of Bertrand Russell's essay, so I will begin
where he did, with an introduction. And he began by asking the right
question: what do we understand when we use the word 'Christian'.
After all, there is not much
point in attacking something, unless you first express clearly and
accurately what it is that you are not.

In this section he makes a very good point:
these days Christianity is not an easy thing to define. He claims that
it was somewhat easier in the days of Augustine and Aquinas, where there
was near
uniform agreement with the various creeds. Now, of course, many people
take pride in disputing almost every clause of the creed, while still
calling themselves Christian.

He excludes certain possible definitions: being a person who tried to
live a good life; or being a
member of a society that was traditionally or culturally Christian. In
each of these, I have no quibble with him, and fully accept his point that
neither of these are good definitions for the reasons he states. He also
makes a point about how, in the United Kingdom, Christian doctrine has
apparently been arbitrarily changed by parliament, using the example of
how the privy council excluded the doctrine of Hell. He mocks this, and
I also agree with the mocking. The privy council, or parliament, or
general synod can no more declare what is and isn't a Christian than it
can declare that a certain type of butterfly should be reclassified as a
teapot. If it
tries to do so, it is final confirmation (if any more were needed) that
the political and church authorities have descended into madness. Thinking
that it has the authority to speak for God and exclude
a belief in Hell from the definition of Christianity, or attempt to
redefine Christian ethics, or to redefine by legal decree certain men
as women ore women
as men, are, in my view, of the same degree of insanity.

Of course, this view is somewhat simplistic. There was not uniformity of
belief even in Augustine or Aquinas' days. Since it is interesting,
and expands on what I want to say here, I'll discuss the example of
Augustine's time period in my next post.

So this leaves the question of how we can define Christianity. The first
and most important thing to emphasise is that Christianity is not simply a
matter of belief.
To be a Christian requires both that we believe certain things, and that
we live in accordance with those beliefs, not just in a few hours on a Sunday
but all the time. You can believe all you want, but if you do not have
Christian charity, it will all be for nothing (at least as far as
being a good Christian is concerned; you would still be a very good hypocrite).

The second thing to say is that if Christianity is true, ultimately the
decision of who is and is not part of the faith is not ours to make, but
God's. This is a bit of a annoyance for those like me who like the
intellectual exercise of writing about Christianity, since we have to begin
with our own definitions, and it would be a bit embarrassing to get to the
pearly gates and be told No, sorry, its not that at all, or to find
that heaven is populated by Medici Popes. I just have
to put aside these worries, and do the best I can, while acknowledging that my
judgement is not the judgement that matters.

That there is an element of uncertainty brings me onto my third point.
Whatever definition we accept should contain a certain amount of flexibility.
Enough, but not too much. This is true for almost any useful definition.
If we want to define the species cat by thinking of one such animal and
ticking off all the properties it has and crossing out all the properties
it does't have and we will get nowhere useful fast. Only a madman with no
knowledge of modern physics (or a German Philosopher, or both) would think
that that is even remotely a sensible idea. There is variation in
the idea of being a cat; not all cats are the same, and even an individual
cat can change over the course of its life. Instead, we should think of cats
in terms of a set of possible states. We can compute the measurable
properties from the states. Writing in terms of states rather than properties
gives us the advantage that we can also describe how a cat can grow and
develop as a movement from one state to another. We can outline tendencies
of how those states develop, both those irreversible tendencies such as a
kitten becoming an adult cat, and reversible tendencies such as the cat
sitting down or standing up. Thinking in terms of properties makes this
harder; we should focus on the more fundamental states of being. If a being
is within the set that describes all possible states of being a cat, then it
is a cat. If it is outside the set, then it is not a cat. All nice and
simple. At least its simple until we actually try to do the work and
draw up the boundaries of the set, so that it includes all cats and excludes
all penguins. Fortunately, I'm a physicist, so the hardest thing I have to
think about is a proton. But the same principle applies (or so I want to
claim). Once we have the set, we can then think about essential properties
which all members in the set share, and accidental properties, which differ
from one member to another.

Fourthly, we should be careful to allow the distinction between being a
non-Christian and merely being a bad Christian. For example, during the
reformation period certain people claiming to be Christian burnt several
other people also claiming to be Christian at the stake. It is clear that
those who did the burning were bad Christians at the very least, in that
they contradicted the commands of Jesus to "Love your enemies", to "remove
the plank from your own eye before attending to the speck in your brother's"
to "do not judge lest you be judged yourself",
and to treat the divisive person "as a pagan and a tax collector" (i.e.
a call to disassociate yourself from them rather than harming them). All of
these, and many more, directly contradict burning someone at the stake.
The people who did the burning might have believed themselves to be
Christian, and perhaps believed themselves to be acting in accordance with
those teachings. But at an objective level, they weren't. This means that
they were either bad Christians, or non-Christians, and which one we choose
will depend on how we define the beliefs that make up Christianity and
which beliefs we say that it is essential for a Christian to act on. I
myself would prefer to treat such people, on both sides of the reformation,
as exceptionally bad Christians
(and nearly as bad people),
but I wouldn't argue too strongly against someone who will state that they
stepped outside the bounds of Christianity.

But, unfortunately, what we want to engage in here is intellectual discussion.
The intellect is concerned with the truth and falsity of propositions.
Bertrand Russell was trying to prove those propositions false, and I believe
that they can be proved true. Therefore, to we have reduce Christianity to
a set of propositions before we can begin. Reduce? That's the wrong word.
We need to extract from Christianity a subset of its essential features,
selecting those parts of it which can be expressed as propositions. This
should be possible since, as I think everyone agrees, Christianity is in
part about beliefs. Then we have something to start with. But which
propositions should we choose?

Should we define a Christian as someone who identifies themselves as a
Christian? This is perhaps appealing to a post-modern relativist who
despises the notion of objectivity, but for the sane among us it is clearly
a non-starter. Anyone can call themselves whatever they like. For example,
consider the cannabis smoking sodomite Rastafarian, who worships idols,
believes that the goal of religion is to break the cycle of reincarnation
and be absorbed into nirvana, and this is achieved by saying prayers five
times daily and going on pilgrimage to Mecca. Such a man may, if he wishes,
call himself 'Christian', but for the rest of us to accept this
self-definition would be to strip the word of all possible meaning and
usefulness. As a corollary to this, we should be willing to accept that many
who do call themselves Christian are not, in fact, Christian. For example,
we can consider theological liberals (those who try to interpret
Christianity though the lens of enlightenment philosophy). While some of
these are merely bad Christians, others, such as those who deny the
bodily and physical resurrection, or the incarnation and its corollary the
doctrine of the virgin birth, or feel that Jesus was just a man with a
strong connection to the innate divine sense within all of us, or
believe the absurdity that God is incapable
of performing miraculous signs, or believe that science has disproved theism;
all these people are clearly beyond the bounds of Christianity, and yet they
can be found even in high positions in many Churches.

No, we need to turn to an objective confessional standard.

In some respects, it is easier to ask 'how do we define an Anglican', or
'how do we define a Lutheran', or Presbyterian, or Roman Catholic, than how
to define what beliefs are essential to Christianity. Each of these
denominations has a confessional standard, whether it is the Roman Catholic
Catechism, or the Ausberg confession, or the Westminster Confession, or
whatever. For example, my own beloved Anglicanism is constrained by its
doctrinal standard: the thirty-nine articles, the book of common prayer
including the ordinal, and
the series of homilies appointed to be read in churches. Of course, behind
these lie the ancient councils, Church writings and scriptures that they
were built on and acknowledge as being more authoritative than they are. The
thirty-nine articles are a summary of what Anglicans believe are the
correct interpretation of those more ancient sources with regards to the
various questions which divided the Church in the sixteenth century. Most
of those disputes are still relevant today, although, unfortunately, we
have also grown a whole load of new disputes, and probably need to add
an additional thirty nine articles if we are to sort out this current mess.
If we are to define an Anglican by belief (and some would, in my opinion
erroneously, define it differently, such as through organisational
affiliation), then the definition is simple: somebody who accepts the
teachings of the thirty nine articles, homilies and the sixteenth century
Book of Common prayer, and, as much as they able, puts those teachings into
practice. This would leave a lot of people in contemporary society who call
themselves Anglican but aren't, and perhaps a few who don't call themselves
Anglican but are. But what of it? Similarly, a Lutheran would be someone
who accepts the articles of the Ausberg confession and, as much as they are
able, puts them into practice. Now it might be thought that maybe we should
try to find out what all these confessions and creeds have in common, and
accept that as our standard for Christianity. But this isn't really the
answer, because we have to decide which sects and denominations to include
in our search. Do we include or exclude the Jehovah's Witnesses, or the
Mormons? To decide this, we first need to have a suitable understanding of
which sects are Christian which either includes or excludes them before we
start, and that rather spoils the point of the whole exercise.

So how should we define Christianity? One obvious definition, which I don't
think that anyone would dispute, is that it is
the religion which was founded by Jesus of Nazareth, called the Christ by
His followers. Christianity obviously demands from its believers certain
beliefs, rituals, participation in the Church, and actions and attitudes,
most importantly the desire that everyone, especially ourselves, be virtuous.
Since we are focussing on the beliefs, then how does the definition of
Christianity as the religion founded by Jesus determine what those beliefs
are? Clearly we should look back to the teachings of Jesus and the doctrines
held by His first disciples. If Christianity is correct, then after Jesus
ascended in the early 30s AD, he left several hundred, probably no more than
a thousand, close supporters scattered in Jerusalem and Galilee; to whom He
entrusted his ministry. On top of these, there would have been a few tens
of thousands more who would have encountered Jesus during His ministry, and
have been sympathetic to the religion; some of these might have joined the
Church in the early years, others drifted away and were re-absorbed into Judaism.
Of those initial disciples, a small number, eleven chosen by Jesus, his half
brothers and other members of his family, and the women who accompanied him,
had positions of prominence. If anyone deserves the name of Christian, it is
this small group of people, and the others added to positions of leadership
in their generation. After an initial Jewish persecution, they
scattered to the leading cities of the Roman and Persian Empires, such as
Antioch, Alexandria and Rome, and it was at Antioch, where Paul of Tarsus
was one of the ministers, that they were first called Christian. They were
not completely uniform in their beliefs, but there was only a limited degree
of diversity. Therefore, what these people unanimously considered essential
beliefs we should consider essential Christian beliefs, and what they
considered non-essential, or which varied between them, suggests the allowed
degrees of variation, and what they considered forbidden should be
considered as being outside the bounds of Christianity.

We are looking for a list of essential definitional Christian beliefs. What
is on that list is in itself an essential belief. Therefore if we choose a
list that is different from the one believed during the apostolic age, then
we are declaring the apostles to be non-Christian, which is absurd. We can,
of course, express those beliefs more precisely and systematically: play
with the words so that there can be no confusion. What we cannot do is
change the meanings of those words.

Bertrand Russell stated in his essay that it was difficult to define the
list of core Christian beliefs in his day. If we are define Christianity
in terms of
those who self-identify as Christian, then that task has become even
harder today, because of the contradictory belief systems held by the
theological liberals and the orthodox Christians. But it would never have
been easy in any age. However, if we were to define acceptable religion
doctrine in terms of the beliefs of the religion's founders, then the
issue becomes tractable, if still difficult. Of course, that would mean
excluding a great many people who call themselves Christian, but who have
added, subtracted, or modified doctrine, or taken it from sources other
than the beliefs of Christianity's founders, or beliefs which can be
reasonably concluded by taking the initial Christian doctrine as a
premise.

So what might those key Christian beliefs include? While others might
disagree with me, here is my own summary of the core and essential
Christian beliefs. Each point can, of course, be expanded considerably,
and would be if I were offering a full treatment of the subject.

Beliefs concerning the nature of God as Trinity, and the person
of Jesus, as summarised by the seven ecumenical councils, and the
three ancient creeds of the Church. This includes an understanding of
God as the creator and continual sustainer of the material universe.
Since God is a sustainer rather than idle bystander, the laws of
physics (whatever they turn out to be) are a description of how
God sustains the universe in accordance with the God-given
dispositions of matter. The universe is not mechanical. The belief in
God plus mechanical laws is deism; but Christianity is a branch of
theism.

Beliefs concerning the nature of man as being originally good, but
deeply corrupted, and incapable of removing that corruption by his
own efforts (this is the issue that vexed Paul in his letter to the
Galatians), but only through the work of God. A corollary to this is
that we need to identify individual elements of that moral corruption,
which means that we need to accept the ethics of the New Covenant,
as laid down in the New Testament and those commands of the Old
Testament which are applicable universally, (perhaps part of the
covenant with all of mankind represented by the figure of Noah),
rather than just part of the covenant of Moses.

Beliefs concerning God's ultimate purpose for mankind, including
the general bodily resurrection, a vision of Heaven as the Kingdom of
God fully realised, a dwelling place
reserved for the pure in heart and virtuous, and the reality of Hell.

Beliefs concerning Christ's place in God's plan for the rescue of
mankind from corruption, most especially the role of the incarnation,
crucifixion, resurrection, ascension and future return. This also
implies a belief that God can perform miraculous signs, and has done
so, and continues to do so. Beliefs concerning the role of the holy
spirit as a giver of life and gifts, guide, comforter, and one who
builds up the church and directs us back to Jesus.

Beliefs concerning how we need to respond to Christ's work, including
repentance, trust in God, and, where possible, participation in the
sacraments of the Lord's supper and Baptism.

Beliefs concerning the nature of the Church, and our own roles in
it and its mission of guarding the sacred deposit of faith,
providing hospitality, general education and material welfare to those
in need,
and being God's instrument in the mission of saving as many as
possible from sin and divine wrath.

Each of these are, I believe, highlighted in the New Testament, either
directly or implicitly, as being essential beliefs for the Christian
faith. Possibly there are additional clauses we should add, but if
we say that a Christian can regard any of these as non-essential elements
of the faith, then we are defining Christianity to exclude the likes of
Paul, Peter, John and James, which is absurd.
But I should emphasise again that being a Christian is not merely a matter
of accepting a list of
beliefs, but those beliefs have to be put into practice as well.

Whatever the merits of my own list, Bertrand Russell chose to make it
simpler, and selected just three beliefs as being essential to
Christianity.

Belief in God.

Belief in immortality.

Belief that Jesus was the best and wisest of men.

I am not completely convinced by this definition; while each of these
points is necessary for Christianity, I disagree that they are sufficient.
For example Muslims
would certainly accept the first two, and I think that many might accept
the third (Jesus is particularly revered in the Koran, and more so
than Mohammed, albeit as a human prophet rather than a divine Son). On the
other hand, various heretical sects, closer to Christianity than Islam is,
would have denied that Jesus is human at all.

Nonetheless, Russell sets out to argue against each of these propositions.
I grant him that if he succeeds, he will disprove Christianity. I will
discuss whether he does succeed in subsequent articles. But not
immediately. I'm about to embark on one of my digressions.

Some html formatting is supported,such as <b> ... <b> for bold text , < em>... < /em> for italics, and <blockquote> ... </blockquote> for a quotation
All fields are optional
Comments are generally unmoderated, and only represent the views of the person who posted them.
I reserve the right to delete or edit spam messages, obsene language,or personal attacks. However, that I do not delete such a message does not mean that
I approve of the content. It just means that I am a lazy little bugger who can't be bothered to police his own blog.